Brexit New Deal/Legal Changes - Risk Still Remains

[Galant]

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/st...40125690310656

Donald Tusk
‏
@eucopresident
1m1 minute ago

"In view of the rejection of the Withdrawal Agreement by the House of Commons, I have decided to call a European Council on 10 April. #Brexit"

[Galant]

GBC News

@GBCNewsroom
45s45 seconds ago

"The UK Parliament has rejected the Government's EU Withdrawal Agreement for a third time, albeit by a smaller margin of 58. There were 286 votes in favour, with 344 against."

[Galant]

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/sta...41392391036928

[Galant]

An American perspective...just stating the facts really:

"Guy Benson‏
Verified account
@guypbenson
57s57 seconds ago
"S***. Show. The House of Commons has rejected 9 different Brexit outcomes this week — including no deal, a new referendum, any of the alternative deals, and the primary, government-negotiated deal. They’ve voted in favor of...nothing."

[Galant]

[spacein_vader]

An American perspective...just stating the facts really:

"Guy Benson‏
Verified account
@guypbenson
57s57 seconds ago
"S***. Show. The House of Commons has rejected 9 different Brexit outcomes this week — including no deal, a new referendum, any of the alternative deals, and the primary, government-negotiated deal. They’ve voted in favor of...nothing."

And it's this failure to come out in favour of anything that makes me think we'll be at the polls to make a decision in their stead before long. Whether that'll be a General Election or some form of referendum I've no idea.

[TooNice]

[...]Brexit was, and should have been seen as, a vote of confidence in the UK. It was essentially saying 'we believe in ourselves, our country, our people, even our government to pave a brighter path to future for the UK than we could have in the UK' (Note: EU?). This should have been empowering for UK politicians, it should have been empowering for Britain, but in the process it's exposed the horrible state of British politics, and the significant lack of leadership that exists. The government was simply unprepared - or even unaware of - the change in mentality that the British people wanted. A desire to be free from domineering control from the EU and to carve their own path. They did not want, and perhaps have never wanted, the "ever closer union" that is the dream of the EU, and yet that seems to be the dream of many British politicians too. I don't see any way forward other than a 'get with the program or step down' attitude. If a future in the EU was the dream, then the dream is over. They can re-visit it decades down the line perhaps, when it becomes clear what the EU has become, or continues to become. But there's no way to re-integrate with the EU now without being far more 'in' the EU than we were 2-3 years ago, and that would be not only a failure to achieve Brexit but a move in the opposite direction, something which should be unconscionable following the referendum and Cameron's attempt at deal-making before it.

The British government needs to simply listen to the plain vote of the people, as much as it might hurt right now, and honour it. Get out, and then the actual process of Brexit can begin - the building of the future of the UK, outside EU governmental control - whatever that may be. And that's what I think gets missed. A future outside the EU doesn't mean some fascist, racist future. Yes it's a big change, but it's a change that means the British nation can begin to decide it's future itself. It means engagement. Clearly we've got a lot to learn about that, and culturally we need to adapt, but that's where we are. To deny the vote and reverse the decision will only serve to divide the nation more. Brexit wasn't a vote to break from other Britons. It was a vote to break from the EU and come together as Britons. It should be pitched as such, and should be approached as such.[...]

I would say that a vote for Brexit can't be seen as anything specific given that it likely means different things to different people. To you, it may mean all the things that you wrote. For at least one Hexite member (and likely more), it could be a way to rid of those evil Eastern European. And who knows, for some it might really be another 350M / week for the NHS.

Your views as a Brexiter may well be as representative as my views as a Remainer.

I note that Pro-remainers argument have always focussed on the economic impact of Brexit. But for me, that has never been my main concern. Frankly speaking, whether the UK prospers more economically or not post-Brexit (than no-Brexit), is of a secondary concern to me. I identify myself as Scottish, British and European (and a few other things actually, my background is rather international, and I hold multiple citizenships; though sadly, the UK is my only access to the EU. This probably explains why I like my "home" to be bigger, rather than smaller - i.e. encompass more countries than fewer). I value being able to move and work freely in Scotland and England as much as being able to move and work freely in France or Austria (etc.). I feel that it is enriching to spend time integrating and learning and experiencing other culture (not in a touristy way). And no, I do not believe it should be just all business, not all about getting a net positive bottom line (some irony some Brexiters argue that it's not just about the economy - well, I agree with that, but just that). If you are law abiding and paying your taxes, I think you should be able to freely move around (if there was a "World Union", I would be in favour of joining it). Some benefits (e.g. culture exchange) are intangible. That is why freedom of movement is my red line but also the red line of most Brexiters (in the opposite direction).

I suppose that if it comes down to it, a soft-brexit that safeguards freedom of movement would get my support (and no doubt drive many Brexiters crazy). I might've been able to get onboard if there was any plans to arrange for freedom movement with some commonwealth countries as an exchange for losing access to the EU. Wanting to live around the world doesn't mean that I have an issue with the UK (though I would in a post-Brexit UK). It was my plan to eventually return. But I've got one life, and I do not want to spend it all in one place. I also do not wish to spend months filling forms just to gain access to a country under strict working restrictions. Yes, this is what normally happens, and I understand why it is done this way, but I still don't like it.

You say that Brexit isn't a break from other Briton, but a break from the EU. But I do not see why it is desirable to come together with other Briton, but not the rest of the EU. It's not like the Scots and English are always on the same page (notably on Brexit). Yet somehow we do put up with our differences, and I see no reason why it can't be the same with the EU.

[Galant]

I hear the argument about no-one being able to determine what Brexit is or means, and certainly people have different priorities like those you mentioned, however, I disagree. Brexit is simple - coming out from under EU governance - it means the UK being able to determine UK law and not being subject to EU law. This should be self-evident from the fact that different people want different things because you can only have those different things if you have the right to choose them. Inside of the EU none of those things are possible - demonstrated again at Cameron's attempt to obtain a deal, and during the current 'negotiations'. Thus it doesn't matter what differences there are in priorities, none of those differences can be pursued under EU law.

Of course, were the EU willing, some sort of combination of rights/laws/membership might be possible - and that's what people debate, but the reality is that they're not interested. If they were there might not have been a Brexit in the first place. Brexit is a result of not being able to have what people continue to clamour for.

So this suggestion that there is no single Brexit is a smokescreen or red herring. It's not true. Brexit is the UK leaving the EU's governance because the EU has made itself all or nothing (and maybe that's how it has to be).

[TooNice]

[...]- we've left, and no matter what, Remainers are going to be furious[...]

Furious won't change much, but it could give rise to a political party seeking to rejoin the EU. I am sure that the odds would be stacked against such party, if only because the public might not be much appetite for another round in the short and medoum term. And any terms for re-joining would likely be worse than what we already have.

But in the off-chance that the opportunity rises and we do end up re-joining, then wouldn't this whole thing we are going through a bit of a waste?

Personally I think that it is worth re-visiting the "Will of the people". Just under three years isn't much, but if the majority really have flipped, then I think it is worth kicking that can further and see if the UK is gradually turning more Pro-EU at that point, or is it flip-flopping etc. I am certainly not against a round three. After all, if the trend really is more Pro-EU over time, and if there is truth that younger voters and sooner to be voters are likely to be Pro-EU, then upholding a result that is, or will soon be obsolete seems somewhat short-sighted.

On the other hand, for all I know, perhaps the number of brexiters have increased since the last referendum a new referendum would actually show that. If that is the case, it could be argued that the will of the people is moving further toward leaving the EU, so the government can ignore that shrinking minority (since at the end of the day, this subject do not offer much room for compromise). I would be fine with that too.

Honestly, I do not buy the whole "2nd referendum will further divide the country" argument. The country is heavily divided as it is. Nor is it about rolling the dice till a certain outcome is reached. But I think there is merit in making sure that the step we are about to take that can't be undone has even the tiniest of certainty to be what we *will* want tomorrow.. based on as much information on the recent "will of the people".

The only reason I can think one might have an issue with a second referendum is that there is concern that the outcome might be different from the first, and find that undesirable. Not sure if that is a good enough reason to be against.

[Galant]

A second referendum would likely divide the country even more because I suspect that the option to return to the EU would not be under the same terms as before, it would be a commitment to fully and permanently join and commit to all aspects of it. Those who wanted to leave would never, ever, want to go back under those terms, and so you'd like end up with two vehemently opposed extremes.

Maybe the EU, knowing that, would soften things a bit to try to get the UK back, but that would be the reality.

The sad thing would be we would never have actually tried to push the Brexit door properly and see just what might be possible in terms of a relationship with the UK. Brexit is new forging a new path, and after a few years, who knows what might be possible in terms of opening up new paths of trade with them. We've simply cow-towed to their demands at this point, and gone no further. Complete head in the sand job.

[spacein_vader]

and so you'd like end up with two vehemently opposed extremes.

I'd say that ship sailed a while ago.

[Saracen999]

My first reservation on the 2nd referendum is that it's standard EU practice for people 'stupid enough' to vote the wrong way. It's been done time and again, and even now, today, we get the EU threats .... so much fir friends and allies.

That said, provided we do leave now, if at some future point a movement builds to rejoin, and wins, well that is democracy.

But, so far, the "2nd referendum" grouos aren't offering that. They're offering a loaded choice.

Consider Dominic Grieve's call .... what he wants, and he's said it time after time, is :-

a) May's Deal,

OR

b) Remain.

Well, given that May's deal is hated by some many Remainers AND Brexiters, what we wants to present Brexit supporters (like me) with is either a deal I detest, or Remain. Would you prefer being shot in the head, or burned alive?

I'm guessing probably neither.

Which is how I feel about Grieve's deal. It's a con trick, a deceit, a conjuring trick.

Then, a Labour MEP was on local radio an hour or so ago, suggesting the 2nd Referendum should be :-

1) May's Deal (i.e. Leave, but on lousy terms),

OR

2) Leave, No Deal,

OR

3) Remain.


Again, conjuring trick. Here, the trick is to offer a deal that unites Remainers and a LOT, but by no means all, Brexiters, witb the objective of splitting the Leave voters leaving 3) with the most votes and the winner, even if 1) + 2) comfortably out-numbered 3).

Again, conjuring trick.

All of which highlights a major problem wuth a second referendum - what's the wuestion?


But there's also the bad precedent.

Suppose we have a 2nd referendum and it goes 52:48 Remain. Then what? Because if you think that settles it, I say it doesn't. A year down the line there'll be calls for #3 because, aftr all, time has gone past and people might have changed their minds. Again.

If that logic is sound to justify ignoring Ref-1 because those that lost don't like it, then it's sound to ignore Ref-2 for exactly the same reason if it's gone the other way.

But does it stop there?

If we ignore a referendum we were all told our decisionwould be implemented, then how about a call to re-run the next General Election because the losing side don't like the result?

We were told we were going to make the decision and it would be implemented. Now, MP's are blocking no only no-deal but May's terrible deal, because they don't like it.

So much for our decision will be implemented.

There is a serious risk MP's are sowing a whirlwind here, and they will thoroughly deserve the contempt they are earning themselves, along with the undermining of belief in the enture system by an already highly disillusioned public.

[Smudger]

A second referendum would likely divide the country even more because I suspect that the option to return to the EU would not be under the same terms as before, it would be a commitment to fully and permanently join and commit to all aspects of it. Those who wanted to leave would never, ever, want to go back under those terms, and so you'd like end up with two vehemently opposed extremes.

Maybe the EU, knowing that, would soften things a bit to try to get the UK back, but that would be the reality.

The sad thing would be we would never have actually tried to push the Brexit door properly and see just what might be possible in terms of a relationship with the UK. Brexit is new forging a new path, and after a few years, who knows what might be possible in terms of opening up new paths of trade with them. We've simply cow-towed to their demands at this point, and gone no further. Complete head in the sand job.

We're already pretty much as split as we can be, the option to return to the EU is on the same terms as we have now. We can rescind A.50 without approval from the other 27. Any future changes to the terms of membership would have to be through a treaty.
Opening up new trade paths hasn't gone well in the three years since the referendum. 'The easiest deal ever' has just been voted down for (hopefully) the last time, Liam Fox promised we'd have at least 40 trade deals 'ready to be signed at 1 second past the leaving time'. How many do we have? 8 on the burner, nowhere near to being ready. I have no confidence that this government could negotiate its was out of a paper bag.

Much larger free trade area than the EU? Nowhere in sight.

If the 'Will of the People' 3 years ago isn't that any more, why would we push through Brexit? If it is, that'll come through in the poll. I'm not seeing an issue with having a 2nd ref.

[TooNice]

Suppose we have a 2nd referendum and it goes 52:48 Remain. Then what? Because if you think that settles it, I say it doesn't. A year down the line there'll be calls for #3 because, aftr all, time has gone past and people might have changed their minds. Again.

I've said it "I am certainly not against a round three".

Personally, I don't know if there is a good reason for this subject to remain so hotly contested. We had one referendum in 2016, which provides the snapshot of a Brexit win, yes, but also a highly contested win.

Give it a bit more time and.. would it always be like this? Or at some point we'll get a 70% for Brexit? Or perhaps 70% for remains?

If we can even establish that it is trending -further- toward Brexit I will quite readily accept that my values may simply not be aligned with the majority of the country. And that is fine.

But even failing that, say Brexiters still take it 50.5%/49.5% I would still begrudgingly accept that fair's fair, even with all the Remainers wide awake, Brexiters won, so again, it's just that my values aren't aligned with the slightest majority.

Saying that, I do accept that formulating the question poses a challenge and yes, it might sound like we are trying to get the people to vote "the right way" (not unlike May trying to push the same deal again and again then.. who wants to bet she'll try again?). But really, this could be the chance for Brexiters to say "Erm, no. We really mean what we meant the first time round". Could it be annoying? Insulting? Perhaps, but just as you wouldn't expect May's speech last week to affect how MP votes, I wouldn't expect voters to not let their ego get in the way of setting things straight. If the parliament can reject May's deal three times, I don't think it would be too hard for Brexiters to reject the union twice.. if they still command the majority (and frankly, I don't know either way; I have pretty much resigned to the notion that my values do not align with the majority; I would like to be proven wrong, but I am prepared to just.. continue settling elsewhere).

[spacein_vader]

My first reservation on the 2nd referendum is that it's standard EU practice for people 'stupid enough' to vote the wrong way. It's been done time and again, and even now, today, we get the EU threats .... so much fir friends and allies.

That said, provided we do leave now, if at some future point a movement builds to rejoin, and wins, well that is democracy.

But, so far, the "2nd referendum" grouos aren't offering that. They're offering a loaded choice.

Consider Dominic Grieve's call .... what he wants, and he's said it time after time, is :-

a) May's Deal,

OR

b) Remain.

Well, given that May's deal is hated by some many Remainers AND Brexiters, what we wants to present Brexit supporters (like me) with is either a deal I detest, or Remain. Would you prefer being shot in the head, or burned alive?

I'm guessing probably neither.

Which is how I feel about Grieve's deal. It's a con trick, a deceit, a conjuring trick.

Then, a Labour MEP was on local radio an hour or so ago, suggesting the 2nd Referendum should be :-

1) May's Deal (i.e. Leave, but on lousy terms),

OR

2) Leave, No Deal,

OR

3) Remain.


Again, conjuring trick. Here, the trick is to offer a deal that unites Remainers and a LOT, but by no means all, Brexiters, witb the objective of splitting the Leave voters leaving 3) with the most votes and the winner, even if 1) + 2) comfortably out-numbered 3).

Again, conjuring trick.

All of which highlights a major problem wuth a second referendum - what's the wuestion?


But there's also the bad precedent.

Suppose we have a 2nd referendum and it goes 52:48 Remain. Then what? Because if you think that settles it, I say it doesn't. A year down the line there'll be calls for #3 because, aftr all, time has gone past and people might have changed their minds. Again.

If that logic is sound to justify ignoring Ref-1 because those that lost don't like it, then it's sound to ignore Ref-2 for exactly the same reason if it's gone the other way.

But does it stop there?

If we ignore a referendum we were all told our decisionwould be implemented, then how about a call to re-run the next General Election because the losing side don't like the result?

We were told we were going to make the decision and it would be implemented. Now, MP's are blocking no only no-deal but May's terrible deal, because they don't like it.

So much for our decision will be implemented.

There is a serious risk MP's are sowing a whirlwind here, and they will thoroughly deserve the contempt they are earning themselves, along with the undermining of belief in the enture system by an already highly disillusioned public.

Agree. Even as a remainer I can only think of 1 referendum question that would not end up a rehash of the previous result:

We WILL be leaving the EU. Would you prefer:

1. No deal
2. Mays deal
3. Leave but stay within the customs union.

Even that would cause serious ructions because you'd have millions of Remain voters either boycotting or spoiling their ballot.

I think to avoid all of this the most likely option will be a General Election rather than a referendum. But I'd fully expect it to return another hung parliament and we'll be right back in it again.

[Galant]